Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1887-08-24
THE PROHIBITION ELECTIONS.

The election on the Murray prohibi-
ton bilr' was held in Laurens and Ander-
son counties on Tuesday Of last week. The
election wa held under an act of the last
Legislature applicable to the counties OF
Anderson and Laurens, providing that
upon a petition of a majority of the real
estate owners of either county, an election
should be held to decide whether or not the
sale of liquor should be absolutely prohib-
tied in all parts of the county, in incorpo-
rated towns, as we'll as in outlying dis
tricts.
The result in Anderson was a large
majority in favor of license, while in
Iaurens the prohibitionists developed
greater strength. The vote in Anderson
was, for prohibition 1873; against prohi-
bition, 3,662-the majority of the ants
being 1924. In Laurens the vote was, for
prohibition, 1858; against prohibition,
LOO, giving a majority for the ants OF
only 142.
It is claimed by some that the election
in Anderson was not a direct test of the
strength of the prohibition sentiment
in that county. The Newberry Observers
solution of the result is that 'Senator Murs
ray wa so thoroughly identified with the
bill that many of those who oppose him
extended their opposition to the measure
and fought it bitterly, regardless of their
real feelings regardingliquo licenses. On
the other side, the Senator's friends sup
ported no license because they believed
his political fortunes were linked with it.
1t is, therefore, impossible to know from
the returns how the county would vote on
the naked and u~nencumbered question Of
license or no license. In Laurens county
the issue was more squarely made and the
result is a better indication of the compar-
alive strength at the prohibition and anti
prohibition sentiment among the voters"
Commenting further upon this subject,
the Observer says:
The most dangerous element of the
question is the colored vote. h forcing
of the prohibition contests has divided
the white people into opposing parties, the
one %contending for a moral and religious
sentiment, the other defending what are
regarded as personal rights and means of
living. The colored voter, of all classes
and degrees, is called in to act as umpire of
the dispute. He holds the balance of pow
er, and will soon learn the advantages
that position gives him for demanding
Such conditions give an endless vista OF
evil results for us to look into.
The Anderson M~teUigencer, of which
Senator Murray is the editor, referring to
the defeat, says editorially:
The prohibitionists have been badly de-
feated in this county. The result has been
accepted by them in good temper, and al
though the majority is large, they had
nothing particularly discouraging in the
result, for it has been attained by the COL
ored vote, and by Irregularities in the reg
istration, growing out of the laxity OF the
registration clause OF the Act. Many ne
groes under age are believed to nave reg
istered, and many disqualified by crime
have also been voted. The full white vote
was not registered. The anti-prohibition-
lists admit that 1900 negroes were regis
tered, while the prohibitionists think the
number was fully 2,500-2,SOO. There are
from 1900 to 1000 colored voters register
ed under the State registration, and there
were certainly, we think, not more than
two-thirds of the vote registered. We are
satisfied there were fully 2,4OO negro votes
cast on last Tuesday, of which the prohl-
%bitionists, from the best reports we can
obtain, did not poll over 100 or 200 at the
outside. There were 5,39S votes polled,
of which, by this count, there were 5000
whites. Thus it will be seen that the vote
with the white voters was close, giving a
small majority to the prohibitionists of
from 10 to 800 votes. We regard these
figures as making the allowances against
the prohibitionists. In the last senatorial
election the Democratic vote was 3,4S5.
All of this vote did not appear in this
election, and it contained several hundred
colored votes which were run into the